Sitetest...one of the interesting pheonomena that seems to occur among some non-Mormons on Mormon FR threads is...
...some will come in on a Mormon scandal thread, and say nary a word about the victim(s), but they'll talk as if they're an advocate or PR agent for the Mormon perp caught up in the crime...
...or some will come in on a thread where Mormon theology is being critiqued and they'll accuse some of us of "bashing" no matter what the tone or attitude is...if it's negative at all, they'll wonder why you aren't taking on the Muslims, the liberals, the Dems, whoever.
And so, at times, I'll ask them the "consistency" Q:
"Tell me, do you rush into threads where a public school male educator has been arrested for a sex crime vs. a female student & start defending that educator? No? Why not? Where's your sense of consistency?"
Or I'll say, "Hey, the Mormon church has been badly bashing Christianity for 180 years with their billion $ budgets and multi-media venues at their disposal. And yet, instead of contacting Salt Lake City HQ to give feedback on their scorched-earth religio-politics, you scold us -- a mere handful of posters?"
So, based on your comments, it's time to ask you a similar Q: What if I essentially repeated back some of your words to you...only changed the group we were talking about (words in italics are yours):
I kinda doubt that most liberal journalists think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their worldviews often imbedded in their articles. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious. You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious. Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.
My "consistency" Q for you: Do you occasionally go into FR threads where the liberal MSM is being "bashed" and torn asunder, and defend them similarly to your words highlighted above? If an ex-MSM Journalist wrote an article about "Ten Lies" he used to tell as a lib journalist, do you feel the need to accuse the journalist himself of lying in how he's presenting the MSM?
No? If not, why not?
I mean, c'mon...you've now gone on record saying the Mormon faith is "goofy" and "whacky." Certainly much of the MSM worldview is "goofy" and "whacky." Do you feel similarly compelled to be an MSM advocate of their goofy, whacky pet agenda?
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized
According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.
I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:
A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.
B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).
Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.
IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.
We're Not Trying to Convert You
Is that statement by the (at that time) missionary a lie? What was his pre-missionary training and support materials all directed towards - converting you. To say they are not there to 'convert' is a lie by all definitions.
Equivocate and misdirect toward catholism all you may try sitetest - you fail epically to address this basic issue. The (former) missionary KNEW at the time he said they were not trying to convert you he was LYING. Perhaps addressing that rather than the bunny trails you've been trying to hijack the thread down.
“Sitetest...one of the interesting pheonomena that seems to occur among some non-Mormons on Mormon FR threads is...
...some will come in on a Mormon scandal thread, and say nary a word about the victim(s), but they'll talk as if they're an advocate or PR agent for the Mormon perp caught up in the crime...”
I rarely peruse threads related to the LDS religion. I looked in on this one because I thought I'd learn that Mormons consciously, with full intent to deceive, tell 10 different lies, and I'd learn what they are.
So, I get on this thread and discover that the “lies” are mostly about the propositional beliefs of Mormons! What a letdown! Here, I thought I was going to read all this good dirt on how those dirty little Mormons were running around like cockroaches in the dark, scheming to wittingly, knowingly deceive innocent people. And all I get is that Mormons missionaries tell people what the LDS religion is all about. Gee whiz.
Now, let's look at your substitution exercise:
“I kinda doubt that most liberal journalists think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their worldviews often imbedded in their articles. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious. You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious. Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.”
I actually know folks who went to college to actually major in journalism and communications, so I'm going to be thinking of some of them as I answer this.
First sentence: I agree with that whole-heartedly. The folks I know actually truly really believe the garbage they spew. They actually believe that global warming is going to have us 20 feet under water by 2050. They actually believe that it's “a woman's right to choose.” They actually believe that higher taxes on the rich are a good idea.
I think they occupy the far denizens of the left side of the bell curve. I think that they've got their heads up you-know-where.
But they're all quite sincere. If gloriously stupid.
Reading through the rest of your substitution exercise, yeah, it all works for me. They see nothing wrong with what they do, or what the lamestream media does. They would strongly object to labeling what they and their cohorts in the lamestream media to as nefarious, even the stuff that really is nefarious.
Yup. Absolutely.
It's why it's so darned frustrating with some of these folks I know, some of whom are actual relatives.
“My ‘consistency’ Q for you: Do you occasionally go into FR threads where the liberal MSM is being ‘bashed’ and torn asunder, and defend them similarly to your words highlighted above? If an ex-MSM Journalist wrote an article about ‘Ten Lies’ he used to tell as a lib journalist, do you feel the need to accuse the journalist himself of lying in how he's presenting the MSM?”
Hypothetical. I'd have to read it.
The problem here is that the actual article in question says this:
“As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984.”
He was a missionary from 1975 to 1977. After his mission ended, he actually went through the Bible and examined the doctrines more closely. The more he studied, the longer he studied, the less able he was to reconcile his LDS beliefs with the Bible. Finally, in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, a full seven years after his mission ended, he left the LDS religion.
To me, this strongly suggests that he was an actual believing Mormon from 1975 - 1977.
If a liberal-turned-conservative journalist were to right that from, say, 1995 - 1997, he wrote all sorts of liberal lunacies, but that by 2004, he'd abandoned his former beliefs and embraced conservative views, I'd think it disingenuous to say that his earlier views were “lies,” or to suggest that other journalists who tout this baloney were “lying.”
Now, there are times when some or many (most? all?) lie. For instance, when Glenn Beck has a rally and clearly hundreds of thousands of folks show up and then Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have a rally and a few tens of thousands of folks show up, and some folks misrepresent the two audiences as basically similar in size. Even there, only the folks who actually manufactured the false data, or those actually aware that the data was falsified would be lying. Those repeating the false information unknowingly wouldn't be lying.
But that's not the affirmation of a propositional belief, that's just fudging. Having one’s own interpretation of the Bible, believing that there are sacred texts beyond the Bible, these are propositions of belief.
“Do you feel similarly compelled to be an MSM advocate of their goofy, whacky pet agenda?”
I'm not an advocate of the lamestream media's agenda, nor of the LDS agenda. I AM an advocate of acknowledging that folks who disagree with me may not be lying, just mistaken.
sitetest